303_Kermit

That all after F-4U Corsair and F-8 Crusader. Taking current speed of work into account it's expected in about 16 years. (assuming that F-8 isn't much complicated than F-4U)

Actually if we compare T/W ratio of various MiG-21, the best of course is bis, but... If we're interested in flying bit higher than 4000m ( 13 200ft) then the best T/W ratio poses PF /PFM. bis actually saw quite a little combat. Most conflicts of '65-'73 (Vietnam, 6 day war, war of attrition, India -Pakistan) - used F-13, PF,PFM, FL (in huge numbers) and my personal favourite MF. Bis was actually more a plane of '80. His conflict is Afghanistan. When he showed up in Middle east Israel had F-15 already (december 1976 is a start of receiving F-15A/B). It's actually a beginning of the end of "MiG-21 era". Clash against 4th Gen US fighters ended up very badly for a little delta. Sooo... no. bis is not the "Standard contemporary" to F-4E. for that we need MF (mainly), or PFM, SMT, FL...

I know it's not F-4, but it's sooo pretty. I have these wallpaper at work and at home:

tbh, There's a training video available on YT about F-4J and AiM-7, shoot from various aspects. There are given F-Pole ranges and Detection ranges. It's not most impressive. F-5E-3 From DCS has amazing radar. Over Syria I was able to detect 2x Mi-24 flying at 10ft from 18 000ft altitude, and 12nm.

Most fighters Is very limited during flight with the tanks. Even more limitations are from that reason by dropping tanks. And actually... It is exactly Rocket - Science it's called these way not without a reason. Anything what points in front of a wing changes Shockwave geometry of F-104's supersonic airfoil. Affects stability. "Shockwave physics" is non intuitive and requires understanding of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics, to start explaining something. To "Figure out " something one requires to redesign wing. F-104S wasn't quality choice - it was economy choice. Phantom was simply much better, but F-104 provided workplaces for italian industry. for start I'll suggest these movie: source of information: "Lockheed F-104 Starfighter: A History" by Martin W. Bowman My best regards.

really?? F-104S were delivered from 1969 to 1973 and were equipped with AiM-7E, AiM-9B/F missiles. NASARR R-21G/H monopulse, non doppler radar. 29nm range for target size TU-95. For something MiG-21 like it's about 6nm. It's rival is F-4E, MiG-21bis, MiG-23, MiG-17, Su-7, Mirage 3/5 There were many problems: In 4 missiles configuration it was a risk of hitting own carrier by AiM-7 since missile nose pointed outside leading edge of a wing. (they create a "own" shockwave placed before the wing shockwave, so it affects also stability) Launching AiM-7 were performed only in subsonic flights. Acceleration of F-104 suffers also in these configuration considerably. F-104S-ASA were delivered in early 1990. FIAR R21G/M1 radar, Pulse doppler Radar, RWR, modern navigation avionics, chaff-flare dispensers, APSIDE Missiles, AiM-9L, and M61 Vulcan refitted back since avionics shrinked back. (source: http://www.karo-aviation.nl/favorite/pages/f104/f104ami.htm) Its rival would be F-15E/C, F-14A, F-16C, MiG-29A/S/G, Su-27, Mirage 2000C. Most modern variant S-ASA-M has very sad career story. I quote after:(http://www.karo-aviation.nl/favorite/pages/f104/f104ami.htm) "Initial flight of the F-104S ASA-M was in 1995, with initial deliveries in 1997. These machines served in an operational role in 1999 during OPERATION ALLIED FORCE, the NATO air campaign against Serbia. The Starfighters were used for combat air patrols, being occasionally directed by airborne warning and control aircraft to check out presumably non-hostile bogeys. Even the ASA-M project was unable to made the Starfighter to soldier on until the arrival of the Eurofighter. During the wars in the ex-Yugoslavia the ASA-M showed all its age and was unable to fly along others NATO fighters. It was relegated to air base protection and deemed unsuitable even for that mission." other sources: https://it.wikibooks.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter Sooo... witch one actually do you meant? For me its better to have F-104C - as a rival for MiG-19P. Don't you think? It's (early)Gen II fighter, and all Gen III updates seem to ... fail. Sadly With my best regards. Kermit

G & C you meant. Radar of F-104 was too small to fully exploit AiM-7. C is capable of air refueling, and it's most advanced version used by USAF. G- obvious reason

Pilot reports tell about heavy weight, and wrong center of gravity (while G rises helmet front lowers down on the eyes, and limits the visibility forward-up in fight). These solutions were warm accepted on AH-1 Cobra, but F-4 needs something lighter, and better balanced. regards

to be honest I can imagine some "Inertia effect" while "G" forces rise. Probably I would be hard to simulate, and all the work would lead players to conclusion, that it's not useful in dogfight. Like it was in original. Interesting fact is, that Heatblur introduced a possibility of having different helmets, so the subject is not dead. Regards

Please don't remove it! at least not from L-39C . Air tightness test of Oxygen mask is a standard point of our startup procedure. First flight a day we always test it. ... you may however be so kind considering to add such failure to your marvelous "Random Failures" My best regards

Nope. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_51.PDF only above Ma=0,85 or 450KIAS

It's kinda ... sick, but except amusement there was a silent, gentle, thought: "Some guy is flying MY plane... MY PLANE! SOME GUY IS TOUCHING MY PLANE!!! I want blood!!!" nice flying, great plane

Every single one. What a question....

Little F-5E is brilliant. I just want it to be not worse than today

Thank you for quick and nice reply! Was the system then replaced by something more modern, if I may ask? AFAIK 77/96 systems were in use still in 1973, until the end of Vietnam war. I know that even on A-4E/F system was implemented only on some dedicated planes, as "additional accessory". Various versions of these systems were in use until 2005. Are you planning to implement GDB on some of future F-4? Thank you for reply. And for giving us F-4. You're doing great work!

Hallo I want to ask about a system very popular in late '60 and '70. Ground Directed Bombing was very popular method of bombardment in imc weather conditions. The system used AN/MSQ-77 ground radar, Reeves AN/TSQ-96 Bomb Directing Central with ballistic computer Univac 1219B, and AFAIK were used on F-105, A-4E/F, F-4B/C ... Here are some articles about it on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeves_AN/MSQ-77_Bomb_Directing_Central https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeves_AN/TSQ-96_Bomb_Directing_Central and here more about it in some wider context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-directed_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_AN/TPQ-10_Radar_Course_Directing_Central https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeves_AN/TPQ-2_Close_Air_Support_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/MPQ-2 Will our F-4E have implemented such system? I can imagine how much fun It would be to simulate such missions. IFR fligt, MiGs, SA-2, and dark cloudy night in my F-4 ...

Here you go Sir:-) here: and here: And finally here: MiG-21 is exception in DCS. In many terms. RSBN - Low fidelity Aiming sight - Low fidelity (explanation you can find in last post) Flight model - Very low fidelity ARU- it's a misunderstanding SAU - same as above Radar - joke. Best regards.

You mean that? Topic is closed. Nothing convincing there either. Advert of F-20 and than 5 sides without single relevant source.

Even 100 voices makes no difference. Most times on these forum 1 person has something to say, and presents some facts. Other 99 usually, like you for example - has nothing to say, but likes to argue anyway. If you present document and facts ED will be glad to improve F-5E. Otherwise is just pointless. It's not War thunder -where planes are adjusted to players whining. Take it easy, and maybe focus on gathering some actual data? Only such way you can change anything. My best regards PS. relevant data, means one need to present something more than internet research.

I fly 99% time in tracking mode. If I become 2x beep I just check what is it, and go back to tracking mode. Works every time. No need to change it

Yes. There's a lot. Easy to find even by Google search. That's why CW planes are so brilliant. There still plenty of them, there are pilots flying them, and veterans remembering them, and they're no more top secret.

To be honest I find current RWR as a masterpiece. On one screen there's information about radars searching. It's always a mess. I look at it only when I hear 2x beep - sign of new radar source. And I have to filter it out anyway, since most of the sources are irrelevant. The second screen shows in clear picture only tracking radars - a real danger. Works brilliant. I never saw anything what gives such clear picture and grat situational awareness. Far better than for example RWR on F-15C where chaos on display forces pilot to pay a lot more attention, and takes a lot more time to get proper SA. I never saw clearer information about threat then the one given in F-5E-3. I hope it won't be changed. It would be a truly disaster if it appears, that it shall work different.

Finally no cheaters! I love original RWR

https://www.f4phantom.com/docs/F4Manual-1979-T-O-1F-4E-1-Flight-Manual-USAF-Series-F-4E-Aircraft.pdf